Social Science Assignment 4 and 5
Multicultural Development in Human Services Agencies: Challenges and Solutions
Cheryl A. Hyde
Comprehensive multicultural organizational development (MCOD) is increasingly necessary in human services agencies. This article presents
results from an exploratory study that identified challenges and solutions to MCOD, against the backdrop of daily realities of agency life. The author
conducted interviews with 20 consultants and 20 practitioners experienced in MCOD. Qualitative analysis revealed four challenges—socioeconomic
environment, organizational dynamics, conceptualization of the change effort, and consultant competence; and four solutions—collaborative
environmental relations, leadership development, assessment and planning, and consultant selection. Results suggest the complexities of MCOD and ways
that human services agencies can sustain such efforts.
Key words: diversity; human services agencies; multicultural development; organizational change
In recent years it has become increasingly evi- dent that human services agencies must be- come more multicultural to appropriately serve
diverse and disenfranchised people. This need is apparent given the increases in populations of color, people who are elderly, and people with disabihties; the widening income gap; and the dis- mantling of the public welfare sector (Bocage, Homonoff, & Riley, 1995; Ferguson, 1996; Gutierrez & Nagda, 1996; Hasenfeld, 1996). Hu- man services managers also must contend with greater gender, race, and age diversity in the ser- vice workforce (Asamoah, 1995; Brody, 1993; Iglehart, 2000; Shin & McClomb, 1998). Under the auspices of multicultural development, activi- ties have been undertaken in response to these trends—awareness training, hiring and retention plans, and improved outreach and service delivery systems (Ferguson; Fong & Gibbs, 1995; Hyde, 1998; Iglehart; Iglehart & Becerra, 1995). Yet, comprehensive multicultural development often remains elusive.
The purpose of this study was to examine mul- ticultural organizational development in human services agencies to understand some of the barri- ers to successful change. Through interviews with practitioners and consultants, and against the backdrop of the daily realities of agency life, chal- lenges to multicultural development are identified and solutions are proposed.
Multicultural Organizational Development and Agency Transformation Multicultural organizational development (MCOD) is a long-term, complex organizational change process that "does not simply accept or celebrate differences, but aims at a reduction in the patterns of racism and sexism [and other oppressions] that prevail in most U.S. institutions and organiza- tions" through a fundamental transformation of an organization's culture (Chesler, 1994, p. 14; Gutierrez & Nagda, 1996; Jackson & Holvino, 1988). MCOD is rooted in the field of organiza- tional development (OD); it differs from OD by
CCC Code: 0037-8046/04 $3.00 © 2004 National Association of Social Workers, Inc.
focusing explicitly on the dynamics of power and oppression in an organization (Chesler; Katz & Miller, 1997).
In the ideal, MCOD results in an organization that embraces full social and cultural representa- tion on all levels; the elimination of sexism, rac- ism, and other forms of oppression; full inclusion and valuing of differences; and the redistribution of power and influence among aU stakeholders (Jackson & Holvino, 1988). Change strategies flow from an assessment of the organization's level of multicultural development (from monocultural to multicultural) (Jackson & Holvino). MCOD is broad in scope and encompasses a range of inter- vention models: legal compliance (for example, affirmative action), prejudice reduction, intercul- tural awareness, managing diversity, valuing dif- ferences, and anti-racism (Chesler, 1994; Iglehart, 2000; Jackson & Holvino). These models vary in the degree of organizational change achieved; yet each is appropriate for an organization depending on its stage of multicultural development.
A multicultural human services organization exhibits an emphasis on social change and em- powerment; interventions that build on client strengths and resources; workplace practices that reflect a multicultural ideology; connections to client communities and networks; hnks to relevant policy making, professional and resource associa- tions or arenas; ties to local, national, and interna- tional networks; and development of an intraor- ganizational learning environment (Gutierrez & Nagda, 1996). A multicultural agency is not achieved merely with the addition of ethnic-based programs or staff representing specific groups, although these efforts could be the foundation for continued change. Nor is a multicultural human services organization the same as an ethno-con- scious agency, which is organized by a particular racial or ethnic group to serve its needs (for ex- ample, a Latino health agency or Southeast Asian refugee center) (Nagda, Harding, & Holley, 1999). A fully realized multicultural agency is premised on a broader definition of diversity, a reconfiguration of power and privilege, and a commitment to social justice. It strives to create one culture premised on the strengths of various groups (for example, race, socioeconomic status, gender) and perspectives within the organization.
Yet, comprehensive MCOD is undermined be- cause the unique features of human services agen- cies (that is, altruistic missions, multiple and am-
biguous goals, democratic impulses, moral ration- ales for work, personalized worksites, and mul- tiple stakeholders) make long-term planning diffi- cult (Gutierrez & Nagda, 1996). The environment of human services agencies is often capricious and hostile, making acquisition of resources and legiti- macy difficult. Human services tend to be in states of crises, rendering them risk aversive or resistant to change (Asamoah, 1995; Bocage et al, 1995; Perlmutter, 2000). Change usually occurs under duress (Iglehart 8c Becerra, 1995). As with any planned change, the success of MCOD depends on how these challenges are understood and re- solved (Asamoah; Brody, 1993; Perlmutter).
Method
This qualitative exploratory study identified the daily realities of multicultural practice, the chal- lenges to MCOD in human services, and some solutions. Qualitative approaches are increasingly used in organizational research (Gummerson, 2000; Lee, 1999). Examples from social work in- clude empowerment (Gutierrez, GlenMaye, & DeLois, 1995), diversity initiatives (Hyde, 1998), and organizational innovation (Shin & McClomb, 1998).
Data for this study consisted of in-depth inter- views with 20 practitioners and 20 consultants in a New England metropolitan area. I used the combined sampling techniques of reputational case selection (respondents are chosen on the ba- sis of expertise) and purposive selection (inclusion of respondents with certain characteristics) (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Primary considerations for sample construction were that informants had knowledge of and experience with multicultural development in the human services and that the total sample be diverse. I, in consultation with colleagues, selected an initial group of eight from my professional networks. Respondents from this group then recommended the rest of the sample.
Of the consultants interviewed, 11 were women and nine were men—four Latinos, seven black people, eight white people, and one Asian. All had a master's or a doctorate degree. Their experiences were mostly with social services, educational, and community-based agencies; some also worked with businesses. Of the practitioners, 13 were women and seven were men—three were Latina, five were black, nine were white, and three were Asian. They worked in agencies that provided job training, health care, housing, family preservation.
Social Work / Volume 49, Number I / January 2004
8
substance abuse recovery, support for elderly people, and community development. All but two beld management positions. Their organizations ranged in size from three to 40 paid staff, and most relied on volunteers. Most of the practition- ers had experience initiating or overseeing MCOD efforts.
Data were gathered through unstructured schedule interviews (Denzin, 1989). In sucb an interview, there is a list of questions, but order, phrasing, and follow-up are tailored to each infor- mant. Flexibility is tbe ballmark of sucb interviews, so that unanticipated ideas and insights can be pursued. Interviews covered personal pbilosopby, bistory of involvement, agency context, factors tbat enbanced and sabotaged positive outcomes, and examples of successes and failures. Infor- mants were provided witb a definition of MCOD (Gutierrez 8c Nagda, 1996; Jackson 8c Holvino, 1988) and asked to compare their practices with that model. I conducted the interviews and tape- recorded and transcribed tbe data for analysis.
The constant comparison process guided data analysis (Charmaz, 1983; Strauss 8c Corbin, 1990). Initial coding of interviews followed topics listed in tbe interview protocol; unanticipated concepts and insights also were noted. Core themes (ex- pected and not) in each interview were identified. Themes were compared across interviews to de- termine areas of common focus and points of dis- agreement in the sample. Analytical categories regarding MCOD processes were developed. Through this iterative analysis, I identified a di- versity-training model for human services (Hyde, 1998), challenges to implementation, and possible solutions.
Results
Respondents identified numerous cbaUenges to fully conceptualizing and implementing MCOD efforts. Tbey also indicated solutions tbat tbey had used to address tbese barriers. Respondents reported that fundamental shifts in power dynam- ics, the core of MCOD, proved most elusive (Hyde, 1998). Respondents more readily identi- fied barriers tban remedies, perbaps indicative of the difficulties or frustrations in pursuing this work. They focused more on organizational and individual problems, rather than on problems cre- ated by tbe larger environment. The identification and explanation of these problems and remedies are sbaped by the daily realities of agency func-
tioning in general and multicultural practice in particular.
Daily Realities
The practitioners, mostly managers or supervi- sors, were asked to describe tbe overall function- ing of tbeir agencies before, during, and after MCOD interventions; consultants were asked to sbare their observations of organizational func- tioning. Three interrelated areas that shaped sub- sequent understandings of barriers and remedies were identified: (1) agency climate, (2) motiva- tions for MCOD interventions, and (3) current multicultural practice.
Agency Climate. Practitioners overwbelmingly described tbeir human services agencies as chaotic and stressful: "Most of the time, I don't think that I or my staff knows if we are coming or going." Consultants picked up on this climate, noting that the agencies seemed to "lurch from crisis to cri- sis." Many practitioners complained that their staff were not fully prepared or competent enough to handle the current realities of agency-based social work. Descriptors sucb as energetic, enthu- siastic, or creative were rarely mentioned with re- spect to staff.
A primary reason for this rather dismal portrait of agency life is the economic problems with which agencies contended in the 1990s. Nearly 75 percent of the practitioners reported that downsizing of their agencies occurred during that period. This made staff anxious about job secu- rity. It also meant that agencies could not offer salaries that might entice or retain highly skilled staff. The changing nature of clients also shaped agency climate. Practitioners reported that client problems were mucb more complex and en- trencbed tban tbey bad seen before: "There is no such thing as a 'simple case' anymore. A woman comes into our agency to get help with a sub- stance abuse problem. But sbe also doesn't have the skills or ability to bold a job, her children's father has gone AWOL, and there is no public as- sistance program to belp ber financially. It's a mess." As refiected in this comment, the shrinking public sector, particularly diminisbed public wel- fare programs, bad a detrimental effect on tbese agencies. Overall, respondents reported tbat many, if not most, agencies exuded a demoralized, ratber than innovative, climate.
Motivations for MCOD. Despite this climate of demoralization, all the agencies represented by the
Hyde / Multicultural Development in Human Services Agencies: Challenges and Solutions
practitioners forged ahead with some MCOD plans. Agencies engaged in multicultural develop- ment for a variety of reasons that in turn shaped the kinds of multicultural practice adopted. Every practitioner, and most consultants, indicated that the primary motivator for MCOD work was to better serve clients: "For us to really help our cli- ents, we need to develop programs that are more culturally sensitive and have staff adequately trained to implement them." This rationale in- forms MCOD interventions that improve the cul- tural competence of staff. A more general (or vague) version of this was the often-mentioned belief that MCOD was the right thing to do: "You just can't claim to do good social work anymore vwthout paying attention to diversity. Some of this is about being politically correct. But mostly, it really is about providing the most appropriate services to clients who really need our help." The other most frequently stated rationale for MCOD was to smooth hiring and retention processes, specifically regarding the diversification of staff. This motivation usually led to sensitivity training for existing staff.
Few respondents indicated that MCOD was undertaken to challenge the dominant organiza- tional culture, because it was a larger part of stra- tegic planning, or because of management decla- ration. The respondents who cited these reasons were more likely to engage in successful MCOD efforts, because such rationales point to the need for long-term, well-planned, and substantial orga- nizational changes.
Current Multicultural Practice. Respondents described the daily realities of multicultural prac- tice as largely focusing on helping white staff ob- tain cultural competence skills appropriate for work with diverse chent groups. The increasingly hetero- geneous client base that agencies served necessi- tated this: "A few years ago we saw mostly white and black clients. Now it seems that we've got a bit of everything. We need to be skilled in work- ing with different Asian ethnicities, with Latinos, with Caribbean refugees." Multicultural practice was framed as a set of skills acquired by individual practitioners, not as an organizational-level inter- vention that would alter the agency's culture. Practitioners believed that their line staff were ill- prepared to deal with client diversity, and thus the emphasis on individual techniques.
Multicultural practice also was implemented through the hiring and retention of staff of color.
Most of the agencies represented by the practi- tioners had predominantly white staff. One route to being more multicultural is to hire staff from the same ethnic and racial groups as the clients. Yet, several practitioners lamented that such staff were either difficult to find or, when hired, did not remain. Consultants observed that agencies were often unable to engage in agencywide strate- gies that would improve the overall climate for staff of color: "Sometimes I think administrators assume they can go hire a black or Latino worker and just drop that person into the middle of the agency without any thought about how receptive other staff are going to be. Everyone says that they want a diverse staff, but in reality, there are a lot of suspicions about competency and fitting in. No wonder minority staff leave."
Multicultural practice was largely limited to concerns about race and ethnicity. There was little mention of socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. The daily realities of agency work, including multicultural practice, formed the backdrop for the discussion on chal- lenges and solutions. Some daily realities were significant impediments to comprehensive MCOD.
Challenges
The challenges to multicultural development identified by the respondents cluster into four ar- eas: (1) the sociopolitical environment, (2) orga- nizational dynamics, (3) conceptualization of the change effort, and (4) consultant competence. Each area infiuences the others; for clarity, how- ever, each is discussed separately.
Sociopolitical Environment. These challenges encompass threats from the broader environment. Respondents indicated that a most serious and overwhelming challenge to MCOD is a troubled or unstable economy. In this case, local and re- gional economies experienced a downturn during most of the 1990s. Downsizing, privatization, and fiscal cutbacks dominated the human services arena in which these respondents practiced. Infor- mants noted that the economic and political back- lash against human services forced organizational innovations: "The biggest barrier to success is a bad economy. When an agency is fighting for fis- cal survival it's difficult to undertake another con- troversial or demanding change like diversity."
The other sociopolitical barrier to MCOD is local, focusing on the kind of relationship an agency has with the surrounding community.
Social Wort/ Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004
10
Poor agency-community relations, as this con- sultant suggested, are impediments: "A major ob- stacle is that most agencies don't know what is going on in their communities. They're not com- munity focused. Most agencies have a deficit ap- proach toward community residents, and that's antithetical to multicultural work." Legitimacy, which is based in part on the agency's relationship with the community, is essential for MCOD. MCOD calls for full involvement of organiza- tional stakeholders, including community mem- bers. When an agency holds neglectful or pa- tronizing views of the community, MCOD is sabotaged.
Organizational Dynamics. Respondents prima- rily focused on agency-level challenges. The most frequently mentioned were workload issues, spe- cifically competing agency priorities and high work demands v«th inadequate support. Because of fiscal cutbacks, practitioners reported that they and their staff were forced to do more with less. Consequently, MCOD was set aside: "I want to do dialogues, workshops, and other multicultural learning activities, but the staff say they are over- whelmed. They say that they need to spend time on their cases, even if I say otherwise." The in- creasing complexity of client problems com- pounded this workload dilemma. Respondents indicated that clients reported multiple stressors that required more time-consuming interven- tions: "Our biggest crisis is staff overload. Staff go from crisis to crisis and don't have time to do much else." MCOD is not a priority, given the more pressing need to serve clients.
Poor agency leadership also challenged MCOD efforts. Respondents saw weak leadership as a fail- ure to promote a multicultural vision or partici- pate in multicultural efforts. One trend was man- agement mandating multicultural work v«thout providing fiscal or personal support: "Administra- tion always wants to focus on line staff; they don't think it applies to themselves." This fragments multicultural development and sends a signal that it is not essential to the agency. Yet MCOD in- volves the entire organization and needs to be championed by the leader.
Respondents observed that earlier, unsatisfac- tory outcomes resulted in people becoming alien- ated from and frustrated v«th MCOD. This gener- ated hostility toward current and future efforts. A practitioner noted that a consultant so mis- handled training that "it really put a damper on
the staff to do this work. It's hard enough without a so-called expert screwing up and undermining this." Respondents claimed that agency members adopted a "here we go again" attitude and disen- gage, and that continued failures signified insin- cere leadership.
Conceptualization of the Change Effort. The ways in which MCOD is understood and initiated shapes success. Respondents indicated that "quick fixes" to crises had little chance of leading to com- prehensive change. Crises included a racial inci- dent between staff, a funder's report that cited a lack of diversity, and an inability to provide ser- vices to clients in a culturally appropriate way. Such events indicate more entrenched problems. Respondents viewed the quick fix as leadership's means of placating organizational members: "J offen get brought in because of a crisis. There is some fiare-up and management wants me to throw water on it and then leave."
Also deemed problematic were short-term, add-on events such as one-day workshops. These approaches can impart useful information and are often viewed as "better than nothing." Yet, they and quick fixes sabotage MCOD because little or no integration of multicultural principles or prac- tices occurs. Without integration an agency can- not sustain MCOD efforts, which contributes to a sense of failure: "We always get a training session, not the needed long-term problem solving work. There's no follow-up. Staff say 'well, that was in- teresting, now let's go back to the way we used to do things.'"
Consultant Competence. Civen that a consult- ant often has a key role in MCOD efforts, much attention was focused on consultant roles and abilities. An agency looks to consultants to frame the effort, guide the process, impart needed skills, and challenge status quo actions. Respondents asserted that consultants undermine MCOD when they reinforce quick fixes and short-term and add-on approaches or fail to help the agency ex- amine its existing dynamics: "The training was this 'we can all get along' business. We can all co- exist, we don't deal with oppression or exploita- tion, power or privilege. Instead we can all be happy! But we never got anywhere."
A consultant who did not assess or get to know an agency was viewed as problematic. Typically, such a consultant was inflexible, using a "canned" approach rather than tailoring interventions to the agency: "You must be open and understand
Hyde / Multicultural Development in Human Services Agencies: Challenges and Solutions
11
the group, and a lot of trainers don't do that. They just follow a routine. Agencies have their own val- ues and motivations, their own histories." Re- spondents suggested that not fully understanding the agenqf often resulted in a poor fit between agenqf needs and consultant practices. Conse- quently, when a problem arose in training or other intervention events, the consultant was un- able to respond in helpful ways: "When we got to the change strategies part, things got really tense. But the consultants had no ability to help us. They gave us a rap, showed a video that didn't apply to us, and did an exercise. We needed help construc- tively dialoging, but didn't get that."
A common problem for consultants is resistance or discomfort of agency members, which occurs often and, respondents noted, should be expected. There are numerous reasons for discomfort and resistance: fear for one's position, forced partici- pation, lack of incentives or rewards, workload, a presumed "correct" viewpoint, and pre-existing group distrust. Problems arise when these con- cerns are not addressed. A consultant's inability to understand and address why discomfort or resis- tance occurs hinders MCOD efforts: "One exer- cise focused on who is in and out of agency power. But the group wasn't ready for something like that, and many people just freaked out. And then there was no time [to] deal with their reac- tions. The consultant says, 'There's a lot here for you to work with' and then moved on. This shat- tered the group and did more harm than good." Such incidents set in motion a vicious cycle in which agency members became increasingly un- willing to undertake multicultural development.
Solutions Four interrelated responses were suggested: (1) collaborative environmental relations, (2) leader- ship development, (3) assessment and planning, and (4) consultant selection. These solutions are what the respondents facilitated or engaged in, as opposed to hypothetical strategies for addressing the challenges.
Collaborative Environmental Relations. Re- spondents said that little could be done to change a hostile political or economic environment. Yet, they proposed local-level strategies that help agen- cies acquire or maintain scarce resources; for ex- ample, diversifying an agency's funding base so that survival would not rest on one or two funders. Respondents suggested that agencies seek
support from funders that facilitate multicultural efforts: "Our funders pushed the initial diversity efforts. They made it clear that they weren't going to continue to fund an all-white group, no matter how good our programs were." Another means of resource development is to pursue MCOD in coa- lition with other like-minded agencies. This ap- proach helps with the costs (for example, sharing a consultant) and has the added benefit of com- munity building: "Coalitions became a real multi- cultural tool for us. We took the time to bring to- gether a diverse collection of groups who were vnlling to work on a shared community problem."
In addition to forging links vfith other agen- cies, respondents stressed the importance of col- laboration with the community. Several consult- ants said that they train agency members in how to do strength-oriented community assessments, so they better understand what the area offers and needs. Offering organizational resources to area residents and groups enhances community rela- tions as well as MCOD efforts: "We promote the empowerment of diverse groups by providing ac- cess to services, office space, and equipment that are usually not available to underrepresented groups. In this way we extend our multicultural mission." Participating in community events such as a street fair or protests for fair housing demon- strates an agency's allegiance to the area and culti- vates its community legitimacy.
Leadership Development. Respondents con- ceded that little could be done to challenge un- committed leaders. Although support of the leader is essential, compelling the leader to act in such a way is beyond the scope of the consultants and some of the practitioners. Yet, there are re- sponses to a leadership void. One is to cultivate new leadership so that multicultural principles and approaches are spread throughout the agency. Respondents noted that leadership comes not only from management, but also from the board, staff, or clients. As one consultant said, "As part of my assessment, I try to determine who is commit- ted or excited about diversity. That's who I want to lead the activities. I argue in favor of that per- son being involved from the start." Practitioners also indicated that they cultivate staff who dem- onstrate concern for multicultural issues.
Respondents suggested that it is possible to work vnth weak (as opposed to uncommitted) leadership. Leaders may be weak in the multicul- tural arena because they do not fully understand
Social Work / Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004
12
or are afraid of what it entails. One practitioner, sympathetic to her often-reluctant boss, offered this insight: "Remember that a lot of people who are heading agencies were trained before multiculturalism came into vogue. Many just don't get it or think it's another fad. And some, like my boss, think it's an attack on how they have been practicing social work, so they get really de- fensive." Understanding this leads to interven- tions with incumbent leaders that build on their strengths and challenge them to further develop their skills: "Often I'll work at first only with the director and the board. I try to help them under- stand their role in the change process. I give them a crash course in why organizational diversity is important. I try to help them anticipate what is likely to happen so they can actively steer the agency through the process. I need to engage the leaders beyond a vague notion that they ought to be doing this [MCOD] work."
Many of the practitioners headed their agency's MCOD efforts, and their leadership actions were instructive. They emphasized the importance of exemplifying a commitment to multiculturalism beyond the rhetoric: "As a white woman doing anti-racism work, I was a powerful role model. It mattered to the staff that I was openly anti-racist and acted on those beliefs." Actions included pur- suing financial support for multicultural training, encouraging staff to learn about cultures that are different from their own and sharing what they learned with other staff, facilitating staff discus- sion on issues of power or oppression, and chal- lenging discriminatory practices. The practition- ers stressed the importance of life-long learning, open communication, full participation, and inte- gration of multicultural approaches in everyday practice. Overall, respondents viewed good lead- ership as being open to differing perspectives, en- couraging involvement in organizational deci- sions and events, and promoting multicultural principles and practices as part of the agency's core culture.
Assessment and Planning. Respondents were adamant that careful assessment and planning is critical to the success of MCOD efforts. Quality assessment and planning activities clarify why MCOD is undertaken; determine the scope of what needs to happen and the level of commit- ment and available resources; facilitate input and participation from various stakeholders; suggest intervention strategies; and send a message that
this is a serious organizational undertaking. As- sessment and planning occurred either before hir- ing a consultant, with the results informing the process, or under the guidance of a consultant, as in this successful case: "I think the reason why our efforts worked so well was that our consult- ant engaged us at the start with an organizational self-study. He helped us figure out what we needed to know, how to get it, and how to use all the information. We learned how to make the process inclusive."
Respondents suggested that one of the most important outcomes of assessment and planning was to help agency members understand that MCOD is a long-term change process. Rather than assume that a few training sessions would solve "the problem," assessment and planning reframed the purposes of training as a catalyst for continued action, not as the final result. Under- standing the long-term nature of MCOD helped integrate the efforts into the agency; it is difficult to use a quick-fix or add-on approach when the scope of what needs to happen is made clear. Fur- ther integration occurred when the assessment and planning process was an open one. It facili- tated the input of various perspectives and helped agency members determine how and when they could contribute: "You have to have a good as- sessment. Not only do I, as a consultant, get to know the agency, but members get to know it as well. To succeed you need agency-wide participa- tion. You need to have everyone feel that they are owners of the process. Assessment is the key."
Consultant Selection. Respondents, noting that many organizations did not take the time to screen consultants carefully, stressed several at- tributes to consider when contracting with a con- sultant. Generally, respondents observed that most consultants are hired for their expertise on specific groups (for example, women. Latinos, or gay men). Neglected in the selection process is attention to the consultant's skills in assessment and group dynamics; yet most respondents be- lieved that these traits are more important to suc- cessful MCOD.
The consultant must be willing to spend time with the agency before any training or other ac- tions so that interventions can be tailored to organizational needs: "When I consult with an agency, I insist on talking to different people, at all levels, to get their perceptions. The purpose of this is to get different ideas of what is going on.
Hyde / Multicultural Development in Human Services Agencies: Challenges and Solutions
13
what the problems are, from everyone. Then I can suggest particular actions that suit the organiza- tion." Differing views and needs stem from vary- ing levels of expertise and degrees of comfort that agency members display. MCOD, if done thor- oughly, generates anxiety and discomfort: "Part of being a good consultant is being able to anticipate discomfort in people. There is a level of discom- fort that may be okay, it's the discomfort that comes from learning." Discomfort and resistance require attention and interpretation so that backlash and sabotage do not occur. Thus, an agency needs to determine from a prospective consultant how she or he handles difficult moments. Several respon- dents spoke of developing ground rules that would guide participation and ban notions that there was only one correct way of thinking: "I em- phasize confidentiality and respect and spend a lot of time up front working with the group around establishing these norms. We come up with our own rules for how we want to behave, how we can safely be open and honest. It helps them take ownership for the process." An agency wants a consultant who does not rigidly espouse one view and can uphold principles of inclusivity so that a psychological safety net for participants is created.
The consultant should also demonstrate the ability to bring various organizational stakehold- ers into the MCOD planning process. A consult- ant eventually leaves the agency, usually before the MCOD process is completed, so it is vital that an agency team can guide the effort. One practi- tioner attributed her agency's success to the consultant's ability to establish a viable advisory group: "The consultant helped our director name a diversity group made up of people from all through the agency—management, line staff, the board, some clients, clerical work[er]s. We had never all worked together before, so [the consult- ant] helped us develop as a group and taught us assessment skills so we could determine what the agency needed. It was a lot of work, but a year into the process we still meet weekly to figure out what we are doing well and what we need to do. We've been able to do that without the consult- ant, who left three months ago."
Because many agencies engaged in MCOD during times of crises, consultants offering a quick fix were often selected. If an agency wants to pur- sue full-fledged multicultural development with outside assistance, it needs a consultant adept at facilitating long-term change. In particular, con-
sultants with strategic planning expertise are rec- ommended. Respondents suggested that the agency be clear about its own needs before select- ing a consultant, to promote "goodness of fit." Agencies need to consider more than one consult- ant, and an agency team (not the director alone) should interview candidates. Agencies should dis- cuss what they need and whom they are consid- ering with other organizations; working in con- cert helps find the best resources. But no matter how skilled the consultant is, if the organization, especially the leadership, is not truly committed to MCOD, then superficial change is the likely outcome.
Discussion Practitioners and consultants identified challenges to multicultural development in human services agencies and offered solutions that they had used. They also described the day-to-day realities of agency functioning, which served as a backdrop for MCOD. Although exploratory, this study sug- gests how MCOD can be initiated and sustained. In many respects, MCOD is similar to other forms of organizational innovation and change. Success- ful transformation is planned and purposeful, long-term, based on careful assessment, participa- tory, and fully integrated into the organization. Leaders, both formal and informal, and other or- ganizational stakeholders guide the process. Resis- tance is expected and is not placated or ignored (Brody, 1993; Perlmutter, 2000). MCOD dovetails with empowerment approaches to organizational practice; barriers and supports for empowerment practice are like those for MCOD (Gutierrez, GlenMaye, & DeLois, 1995; Iglehart, 2000; Nagda, Harding, & HoUey, 1999).
MCOD is more complicated than "generic" organizational change because of its explicit focus on power and privilege, cultural identities, and oppression (Chesler, 1994; Jackson & Holvino, 1988). In U.S. society, discussions of race, gender, and socioeconomic status are difficult at best, and often taboo. Social work has its own legacy of oppressing or neglecting disenfranchised groups and now struggles to put often well- meaning intentions into practice (Iglehart & Beccera, 1995). This rectification is particularly hard when people feel threatened or chastised; yet, because MCOD challenges the status quo, that is what organizational members are likely to feel. Multicultural development is a unique form of
Socifl/Wort/Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004
14
organizational change and needs to be framed as such.
This study indicates that the burden for con- ceptualizing and guiding MCOD efforts falls heavily on agency leaders (usually the executive director). Lack of leadership support and involve- ment were significant barriers and almost impos- sible to surmount. Shin and McComb (1998) found that the most important predictor of suc- cessful organizational innovation was a leader who possessed a "vision setter" style, manifested by attention to emerging trends, creative problem solving, inventiveness, motivation, and infiuence. Such traits in a leader, plus a deep belief in the importance of multiculturalism, are essential for an agency engaging in MCOD.
Yet, as suggested in the discussion on daily re- alities, these are difficult times for human services agencies, particularly for management. The cha- otic agency climate, as a result of economic prob- lems and more complex clients, reappeared as a significant barrier to MCOD in the form of a troubled economy and workload issues. Studies indicate that managing diverse staff and respond- ing to diverse client populations (aspects of MCOD) are only two of many challenges faced by human services administrators (Bocage et al., 1995; Fong 8c Cibbs, 1995; Hasenfeld, 1996; Shin 8c McClomb, 1998). These challenges exist in rap- idly changing economic, political, and technologi- cal environments. Increasingly, agency perfor- mance is based on efficiency and effectiveness. Consequendy, MCOD efforts need to be con- nected to larger concerns of organizational main- tenance, viability, and performance standards.
The primary motivations for MCOD do not necessarily result in long-term, comprehensive change. The popular "to do the right thing" sounds good rhetorically but does not sustain multicul- tural development in an era of fiscal constraint. Instead, MCOD needs to be tied to the agency's bottom line (Katz 8c Miller, 1997). Although re- spondents noted that MCOD conceptualization (for example, assessment, planning, integration, long-term change) was a factor in its success, the primary motivation to serve clients better usually led to individual skill development. This means that agency leaders need to carefully articulate the reasons for MCOD in ways that raise it to a com- prehensive organizational-level intervention.
Respondents barely discussed the responsibili- ties or actions of staff (apart from leadership).
Yet, staff commitment is necessary for success (Ferguson, 1996; Iglehart 8c Becerra, 1995). Con- cerns, such as discomfort and resistance, were viewed as tests of understanding for the leaders or consultants, not as problematic staff actions, per se. But in discussions about agency climate, prac- titioners repeatedly raised concerns about the competence and engagement of their staff. How- ever, respondents did not connect these concerns to MCOD success, although an ill-prepared or disinterested staff is an impediment to organiza- tional change (Perlmutter, 2000). Improving the broader organizational climate so that it supports innovation and investment by staff is another challenge for human services managers.
Although agency leaders set the tone for and ultimately guide MCOD, this research indicates that the consultant is often the key "hands-on" person. Yet, there is a dearth of information on how to select a consultant, let alone a consultant to assist with MCOD (Katz 8c Miller, 1997). The respondents' suggestions are useful starting points. So that scarce resources (that is, money and time) are not squandered, an agency must use great care in finding a consultant who under- stands the organization's current status and can constructively challenge it to change. A consultant needs to understand the agency's environmental pressures and how those pressures affect organiza- tional innovation. The agency has to resist view- ing the consultant as a panacea for its problems, or as a scapegoat for failures, if full organizational participation has not occurred.
Multicultural human services agencies are more necessary than ever before. Demographic shifts clearly indicate this, as does the political backlash against disenfranchised groups. MCOD is a complex process in which full realization is unlikely. Nonetheless, this study's respondents would advocate for persistence, because even par- tial changes can make significant differences in the lives of clients and staff and can become build- ing blocks for future work. The agency that strives toward a multicultural ideal is increasingly ca- pable of providing culturally appropriate and nur- turing services for those in greatest need. •
References Asamoah, Y. (1995). Managing the new multicultural
workplace. In L. Ginsberg & P. R. Keys (Eds.), New management in human services (2nd ed., pp. 115- 127). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Hyde / Multicultural Development in Human Services Agencies: Challenges and Solutions
15
Bocage, M. D., Homonoff, E. E., & Riley, P. M. (1995). Measuring the impact of the fiscal crisis in human services agencies and social work training [Notes from the Field]. Social Work, 40, 701-705.
Brody, R. (1993). Effectively managing human service organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publica- tions.
Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method. In R. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research: A collection of readings {pp. 109-126). Boston: Little, Brown.
Chesler, M. (1994). Strategies for multicultural organi- zational development. Diversity Factor, 2(2), 12-18.
Denzin, N. (1989). The research act. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ferguson, S. (1996). Towards an anti-racist social ser- vice organization. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 4(1), 35-48.
Fong, L., & Gibbs, J. (1995). Facilitating services to multicultural communities in a dominant culture setting. Administration in Social Work, 19(2), 1-24.
Gummerson, E. (2000). Qualitative methods in manage- rial research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica- tions.
Gutierrez, L., GlenMaye, L., & DeLois, K. (1995). The organizational context of empowerment practice: Implications for social work administration. Social Work, 40,249-258.
Gutierrez, L., & Nagda, B. (1996). The multicultural imperative in human service organizations. In P. Raffoul & C. McNeece (Eds.), Future issues in social work practice (pp. 203-213). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hasenfeld, Y. (1996). The administration of human services. In P. Raffoul & C. McNeece (Eds.), Future issues in social workpractice (pp. 191-202). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hyde, C. (1998). A model for diversity training in hu- man service agencies. Administration in Social Work, 22(4), 19-33.
Iglehart, A. (2000). Managing for diversity and empow- erment in social services. In R. Patti (Ed.), The handbook of social welfare management (pp. 425- 444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Iglehart, A., & Becerra, R. (1995). Social services and the ethnic community. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Jackson, B., & Holvino, E. (1988). Multicultural organi- zational development (PCMA Working Paper Series No. 11). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Pro- gram on Conflict Management Alternatives.
Katz, J., & Miller, F. (1997). Between monocuhuralism and multiculturalism: Traps awaiting the organiza- tion. In D. Van Eynde, J. Hoy, & D. Van Eynde (Eds.), Organizational development classics (pp. 292- 302). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, R. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organiza- tional research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica- tions.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Nagda, B., Harding, S., & HoUey, L. (1999). Social work and multicultural organizational development: To- ward empowering and empowered organizations. In W. Shera & L. Wells (Eds.), Empowerment practice in social work: Developing richer conceptual founda- tions (pp. 278-306). Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
Perlmutter, F. (2000). Initiating and implementing change. In R. Patti (Ed.), The handbook of social welfare management (pp. 445-458). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shin, J., & McClomb, G. (1998). Top executive leader- ship and organizational innovation: An empirical investigation of nonprofit human service organiza- tions. Administration in Social Work, 22(3), 1-21.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Cheryl A. Hyde, PhD, is associate professor. School of Social Work, University of Maryland, 525 West Redwood Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21201; e-mail: chyde@ssw. umaryland. edu
Original manuscript received July 17,1998 Final revision received June 20, 2000 Accepted September 14, 2000
Social V/ork/ Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004
16